CAA versus GA again

[cessnapete]

I have just picked up my a/c from our Maintenance Organisation after a routine Check.
The owner of this well respected Company recently died, and his son has assumed the ownership. Neither gentlemen had/have any part in the operation of the Company, and none of the employees have changed. The only difference to the organisation one would assume, would be a change of name on the letterhead.
In fact the CAA have insisted on a complete audit and inspection ,for which said Company will be charged several thousand pounds!
We now await a further hike in our maintenance charges, directly due to this bureaucratic nonsense.

[Johnm]

A lot of the CAA's desperate search for revenue opportunities arises because the CAA is instrcuted by the treasury to make 6% on capital employed. A completely bonkers demand, but then the Treasury is completely bonkers.:ugh:

[Mike Cross]

I've got some cash and would be delighted to get a 6% return:*

[Fuji Abound]

For a commercial concern if you cant make a 6% return on capital employed you are wasting your time - go do something else, however whether the CAA should be considered a commercial concern is another matter.

Personally I think the sooner non commercial operations are hived off the better.

I dont like the idea of one Regulator responsible for commercial operations and "hobbyists" given that each have very different motivations for being in the game, subject to the caveat that where the aircraft is sufficiently large to do real damage to the public the standards should be comensurate.